Today’s case from the Eighth Circuit is an interesting one, mainly because it involves a wannabe lawyer who may or may not be involved in sex trafficking. Before we dive in to this crazy case, let’s review the preparation of a warrant with a special focus on establishing probable cause using hearsay: There are three key components to a search warrant: (1) particularity of […]
What Types of Information Establish Probable Cause? Continue Reading
Our case comes to us today from the Eighth Circuit. The themes surrounding this case include involuntary statements and the plain view doctrine. First, what makes a statement involuntary during an interrogation? According to United States v. Vega, “A statement is involuntary when it was extracted by threats, violence, or express or implied promises sufficient to overbear the defendant’s will and critically impair his
What Makes a Statement Involuntary During an Interrogation? Continue Reading
Today’s case out of the Seventh Circuit proves that you should be careful when using an informant who has an axe to grind. An FBI agent finally took the bait from Stafford Garbutt to look into misconduct at a government agency, after he was demoted and stripped of his title. Often when dealing with cases that involve agents of the government, there are different
An Informant with an Axe to Grind Continue Reading
Today’s case from the Eighth Circuit involves officers locating two naked fugitives and conducting a protective sweep. ATF was later called in when a firearm was found during the initial search. Two cases to note to better understand our case today. First, in United States v. Cedano-Medina, the standard was set that a “warrantless search is valid if conducted [based on] knowing and voluntary
Naked Fugitives and Protective Sweeps Continue Reading
Today’s case, United States v. Miles, is another traffic violation coming to us from the First Circuit. The trooper in today’s case has an excellent memory, and as a result he was able track down our suspect who was in possession of illegal drugs. The Court uses Whren v. United States, in their argument. In Whren, SCOTUS held that the reasonableness of a traffic
Objectively Reasonable Facts and Hidden Agendas – United States v. Miles Continue Reading
As we have discussed in previous training sessions, protests at City Council meetings and town halls are becoming more frequent. Today’s case, Williamson v. City of National City, took place in a City Council meeting. When evaluating a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force, the court will ask whether an officer’s actions were objectively reasonable considering the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. While
The Force Must Match the Circumstance Continue Reading
Officers in our case today, United States v. Cole, had suspicions of drug activity and used what could potentially be seen as stalling tactics to ensure that a canine could arrive on the scene. According to the 2015 SCOTUS case, Rodriquez v. US, a seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation “becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete
45 Minutes for a Traffic Stop? Continue Reading
Officers in our case today from the Seventh Circuit had suspicions of drug activity and used what could potentially be seen as stalling tactics to ensure that a canine could arrive on the scene. According to the 2015 SCOTUS case, Rodriquez v. US, a seizure justified only by a police-observed traffic violation “becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to
How Long is Too Long During a Traffic Stop? Continue Reading
Today’s case, United States v. Meals, 21 F.4th 903 (5th Cir. 2021), actually makes Facebook look like the good guys for a change. Before we jump into the facts of the case, let’s review our major legal component today, the private search doctrine. According to United States v. Jacobsen, under the private search doctrine, when a private actor finds evidence of criminal conduct after searching someone
CyberTip From Facebook Employee Continue Reading
Vega v. Tekoh is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2022. Supreme Court justices voted 6-3 that police officers can no longer be sued under a §1983 claim if they forget to state a suspect’s Miranda rights. While the court still believes that Miranda rights should be read, they reiterated that Miranda rights are “prophylactic”, meaning precautionary, and the
Supreme Court Ruling Protects Law Enforcement When Miranda Warnings Are Missed Continue Reading